Dairy Farmers Object to Accountability Demands.

Environment Southland has had to retrospectively manage the consequences of the rapid growth of dairying in the region. Under previous councils dairy conversions were approved that were inappropriate and the cause of serious environmental consequences. The Waituna Lagoon, for example, would not be under the same level of threat if more robust regulations and oversight had been in place.

The recent changes in the requirements for dairy conversions will mean that all new farms need to have management plans in place before they can be approved. Federated Farmers' objection to these new expectations seems nonsensical. It appears that they want to be exempt from the same level of scrutiny and environmental controls that would apply to any other industry that impacts on the environment. Sadly there is ample proof that the dairy industry is not yet one where self regulation and high trust can be applied.

The article on the front page of today's Southland Times makes Federated Farmers sound more petulant than reasonable and I felt it deserved a response:

While
dairying has become an important Southland industry,
and has provided obvious economic benefits, there is no denying
that its rapid
expansion has also come with environmental costs. We have some
excellent dairy
farmers who take the responsibility of land stewardship
seriously but we also have those who have come into the industry
with different motives and
little care for the environmental consequences of their
practices.

It
seems perfectly reasonable to me that if there is going
to be a significant change in land use that a resource consent
should be a
requirement, as it would for any industry. It also seems to be
reasonable that
those who intend to convert a farm for dairying should do so
with a clear idea
of how it should be managed.

Federated
Farmers seem to be implying that providing a soil
assessment, a nutrition management plan and a winter grazing
plan is an
unnecessary imposition on any new dairy farm owner. Surely, if
this can’t be
provided then there would be serious concerns about the future
management of
the farm.

I
also couldn’t understand how Environment Southland’s new
rules had negative consequences on the loan decisions of banks.
I would have
thought that a bank would look more favourably at financing a
conversion that
had a good management plan in place.

I am
aware that banks can put unnecessary pressure on
farmers in support of their own profits but it is also a fact that inflated
property values have resulted in large loans and over-capitalisation,
hardly
the fault of our environment council.

The
reaction from Federated Farmers appears to be a very
emotive one and Environment Southland has unfortunately become
the scapegoat
for all that ails the industry.

If the letter is published, it will be interesting to see the content of any replies. I genuinely don't get their argument and can't understand how Environment Southland can be responsible for the banks discouraging investment in sheep farming. Have i missed something?

Popular posts from this blog

The latest Unicef report has us languishing at the bottom of the developed world in relation to the health and welfare our children and youth. This report was based on the data our government collects and concerningly, with regards to child poverty, a ranking wasn't provided because of a refusal to follow standard practice (an admission of failure?). In many documented areas we are seriously neglecting our young people (ranking numbers are determined by the data provided from a maximum of 41 developed countries):Child Poverty (41/41?) I consider that we must be by far the worst in the developed world for child poverty when the Government refuses to use the same measures as other countries so that we can be ranked. Our Children's Commissioner and the Child Poverty Monitor currently state that 14% of our children suffer from material hardship. We have a much higher threshold to determine this and require 7 elements to recognise hardship, while most other countries use only two.…

Metiria Turei's AGM admission has exposed the inequality, racism and meanness that thrives in New Zealand society.

There are few people who can look back at themselves as young adults (18-24 years) without remembering past decisions and actions that we wish could be replayed with our current knowledge and experience. Times when we badly mismanaged relationships; broke the law and got away with it (or not); impulsively squandered money or said or did something stupid while intoxicated.

The National Government probably passed its "use by" date well before the last election. It has held power through clever PR and an affable Prime Minister, despite achieving little of note over nine years. However, John Key is no fool, he resigned because his money trading, sixth sense told him the odds of winning another term in 2017 were not great. The years of mismanagement were being increasingly revealed and the election would be the Opposition's to lose.

The Government is rapidly running out of excuses for its lack of competence. After nine years it is hard to blame the previous Labour Government for things that are happening now. The Global Financial Crisis occurred in 2007-2008 (a decade ago) and the Christchurch earthquake happened seven years ago. Whatever the country is dealing with now is largely down to National's governance.

What I find interesting is the eventual demise of this Government may be triggered by Melanie Reid's investigative work on th…